I have to admit, “jackwagon” is now one of my favorite words. It came into my vocabulary courtesy of R. Lee Ermey via the great series of Geico commercials in which a “former Drill Sergeant make[s] a terrible therapist.”

Here then is the former Drill Sergeant himself, in an appearance from earlier in the month at a Toys 4 Tots benefit, giving his opinion about President Obama. Warning: it’s not for crybabies!

So let’s just let Obama and his crew chug on over to mamby-pamby land, shall we, while we start to take back our nation. With guys like R. Lee on our side, how can we lose?

As usual, the President did a superb job delivering his annual Christmas Eve speech; his love of country and his pride in our military shines through his every word. Clearly he believes in what we are fighting for, and it is evident that he holds our troops in the very highest regard.

In case you missed it, here is a small clip of his speech; I think you will agree that it is inspirational, reverent, and entirely appropriate.

Of course, it’s not our current president who gave this heart-felt oration; it is the speech President Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave on Christmas Eve in 1943, during the depths of World War II.

On Wednesday, December 21, 1988, 270 people were murdered in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. It was another battle in a war that had been ongoing for many years. Sadly, only the attacking force recognized this war for what it was. It would take several more attacks and nearly 13 more years before the world woke up and paid attention. At the time, the Lockerbie bombing was simply another act of agression against the West.

Of course we all know that last year, on what were termed “compassionate grounds” with the understanding that he would go home and die quickly, the Lockerbie bomber was released and returned to Libya, where he met a hero’s welcome and is still alive today.

Now, exactly 22 years after the bombing, the Senate has released a report on the bomber’s release, entitled “Justice Undone: The Release of the Lockerbie Bomber.” According to the Telegraph UK:

“The report suggests that a $900 million (£580 million) BP oil deal that the Libyans had threatened to cut off and a $165 million deal with General Dynamics for a “tactical communications system” were motivating factors for the British government under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown…

“It states that the prognosis given to al-Megrahi that his terminal prostate cancer meant he had just three months to live was “inaccurate and unsupported by medical science” and that the Scottish government “simply intended to use compassionate release as political cover for returning al-Megrahi to Libya”.

Other higher-ups in the British government participated in the release decision as well. MSNBC reports:

“Britain’s ambassador to Libya, Sir Vincent Fean, “directly participated” in an October 2008 meeting with Scottish government and senior Libyan officials to discuss a “way out” for Megrahi, it states.

“Other British officials repeatedly warned the Scots that “British interests, including those of U.K. nationals, British businesses and possibly security cooperation would be damaged — perhaps badly — if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison,” according to a statement British Foreign Minister William Hague provided the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.”

When the report came out yesterday, Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron was almost Obama-like in his haste to blame the prisoner’s release on his predecessor, Gordon Brown.

In short:

Oil interests in UK want deal with Libya. Libya wants bomber released. Unqualified doctors say bomber is dying and should be allowed to go home. Bomber goes home and and is still alive over a year later. Oil interests and UK satisfied. US Senate cries foul. Cameron says “Bush Brown did it!”

If you guessed that they are all products for kids which offer some sort of toy or prize either inside the box or for collecting boxtops or labels–you are correct!

For at least half a century (if not longer) advertisers have been marketing directly to children by offering swell toys and prizes if only the kids will persuade Mom to buy items like those above. But Monet Parham of San Francisco is only suing McDonalds, oddly enough. Why not sue Pepsico, owner of Cracker Jacks, or Kelloggs, General Mills, or Post Cereals?

In fact Ms. Parham, who is a regional program manager working for the state of California on child nutrition matters, is suing McDonald’s on behalf of her daughter to force them to stop offering toys with Happy Meals, because, as she says:

What kids see as a fun toy, I now realise is a sophisticated, hi-tech marketing scheme that’s designed to put McDonald’s between me and my daughters.

‘For the sake of other parents and their children, I want McDonald’s to stop interfering with my family.

And as far as Happy Meals, why now? McDonald’s has been offering Happy Meals for over 30 years. Ms. Parham’s daughter is six years old… she has probably been of “Happy Meal age” for at least two years.

According to McDonald’s, a Happy Meal consists of a burger or chicken nuggets, a small portion of french fries or sliced apples, and a choice of low-fat milk or apple juice. Yet Ms. Parham is not suing to change the contents of the food in the Happy Meal, which her lawsuit claims is unsuitable for young children, but simply to halt the inclusion of a toy with the meal.

If she were really concerned about the children, shouldn’t she be pushing for McDonald’s (and by extension, all other companies which market less-than-healthy food to kids) to drop the fatty/sweet/salty stuff? Shouldn’t a stupid toy be the least of her worries?

But no, the problem is not the food, evidently. The problem is that she doesn’t want to say “no” to her kids when they ask for Happy Meals.

‘This litany of requests [to eat at McDonald’s] is draining and very frustrating for children. I would like this practice to stop.’ [Emphasis mine]

And so because one mother doesn’t want to discipline her children, McDonald’s will probably be banned from putting toys in with their Happy Meals, at least in the People’s Republic of San Francisco.

And just what kind of flak are Ms. Parham’s kids going to be taking from this lawsuit? How many of their friends will be saying, “It’s your fault we can’t get toys in Happy Meals anymore–your mom’s lawsuit spoiled it for everyone”?

Also spoiled: children’s chances for a learning experience about the real world:

Barely a year ago, Scott Brown stunned state and national pundits with his leap to stardom as the poster-boy for the Tea Party, and against all expectations, ended up taking the Kennedy Seat People’s Seat as Senator Brown (R-MA). So he’s had almost a year of grace to prove that he is, in fact, a Massachusetts Republican, which is far better than a Massachusetts Democrat, by any stretch of the imagination.

And now, not yet even into 2011, the campaign against Sen. Brown has begun. The Huffington Post reports on the first salvo, which was fired by The Agenda Project, the selfsame group who promoted those “Patriotic Millionaires” who want Obama to raise their taxes. Although there is absolutely nothing preventing them from paying more taxes, they simply can’t do it unless it’s legislated for everyone. Of course, out of their reported 375,000 millionaires in America, they could only find 150 to sign their petition. Really? Wow, most of our millionaires must be smart!

But I digress. The brains driving force behind those poor lower-tax-paying millionaires is now targeting our very own Scott Brown, in an attack ad guaranteed to make you feel, er, something:

For those of us who think Sen. Brown is doing as well as can be expected, there’s really a simple solution: watch that video again, this time with the volume off. Say to yourself as you watch, “Massachusetts actually has a Republican Senator.” When you look at it that way, it’s actually a pretty good ad!

In what may have been his very first feeble attempt at bipartisanship since being elected over two years ago, President Obama promptly destroyed any smidgin of good will he may have accumulated by mewling to the press about the perfidy of Republicans as he announced his deal to extend unemployment benefits (again!) in exchange for dropping a greatly-desired-by-Democrats tax increase. In response to a reporter’s question about rewarding the “obstructionism” of the Republicans, the President had this to say:

“It’s tempting not to negoitate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.”

Others have pointed out with skill and eloquence the clear message this sends to those who wish us ill: Our president will negotiate with terrorists, especially if they threaten to harm Americans.

My complaint is this: In the history of this nation, I don’t believe there has been another president who actively viewed more than half of his constituency as “the enemy“. Obama’s words display this mind-set time and time again. In this instance, his view is that Congressional Republicans have taken the American public hostage in order to force the President to act on something the American people overwhelmingly want: low taxes and more jobs.

By now, President Obama is used to being on the receiving end of criticism from conservatives. Ever since Americans started waking from their coma-like sleep-state (due largely to the efforts of conservative talk shows, columnists, and blogs), the more Obama’s alleged socialist agenda has been uncovered, the more conservative Americans criticized him.

Source: Geovanni's World

Now, with yesterday’s compromise with those hostage-taking Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts for all income levels in exchange for extending unemployment benefits, Lord Obama suddenly finds himself in uncharted waters: He’s now being attacked by his own support base of liberals. Sadly for Obama, there isn’t a chapter in Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” that covers mutiny within his own ranks. Perhaps it’s time for another trip abroad?

You may recall how the alleged comedienne/actress Janeane Garafalo defined any and all criticism of President Obama as merely ‘Racism, straight up” by those she dismissed as “teabaggers and rednecks.” One can only wonder if that applies now that the criticism is coming from his own supporters.

In fact, lets check with our old friend, “The Fly On The White House Wall” to see if he can shed any light on this… Read the rest of this entry »